12 ms·

But hang on - you painted a picture of the burnt out tired mother that can't wait to get back to work, away from the drudgery of motherhood. I'm saying that's n

But hang on - you painted a picture of the burnt out tired mother that can't wait to get back to work, away from the drudgery of motherhood. I'm saying that's not a fair representation of many womens' priorities. I could even take it a step further and say that for many women, emancipation in terms of employment has destroyed their chances of having what would really make them happy (a family life) due to the need to put education, building a career etc. ahead of finding a partner and having children. To be provocative I could say women have swapped (or had swapped for them) marriage to a husband for marriage to their employer. Wasn't feminism supposed to be about unshackling women?

the_af 7y ago
I didn't bring feminism into this, mind you. I'm also talking about my priorities and rights as a father. I didn't mention and wasn't thinking about feminism or women's rights, though of course those are related topics. Did you notice this? Emancipation is emancipation. If being "shackled" to a job/employer is destroying someone's chances at a happy life, that's a problem with capitalism at large. I don't see why it has to be about motherhood or parenthood, and not about a blood-sucking system. The implication that (some? most? many?) women had stay-at-home motherhood "swapped for them" for a career/education is the underlying tone that I dislike in your narrative (and which user seneca "doesn't see" in your post). "Had it swapped for them" is pretty insulting wording, come to think of it. > Wasn't feminism supposed to be about unshackling women? Yes.
watwut 7y ago
There are still stay at home moms, either cause they like it, for children or because it makes economical sense. And there were always women who had to work. At every single point in history. And to be flippant, it is easier to swap employer when things go wrong, abusive or violent. And practically, ability to earn money do improve this aspect significantly. It makes things better if husband dies or get sick too. Also, if the husband is working 12 hours a day in two jobs, you don't get much familly with him either. He kind of becomes wallet.

the_af 7y ago

I didn't bring feminism into this, mind you. I'm also talking about my priorities and rights as a father. I didn't mention and wasn't thinking about feminism or women's rights, though of course those are related topics. Did you notice this? Emancipation is emancipation. If being "shackled" to a job/employer is destroying someone's chances at a happy life, that's a problem with capitalism at large. I don't see why it has to be about motherhood or parenthood, and not about a blood-sucking system. The implication that (some? most? many?) women had stay-at-home motherhood "swapped for them" for a career/education is the underlying tone that I dislike in your narrative (and which user seneca "doesn't see" in your post). "Had it swapped for them" is pretty insulting wording, come to think of it. > Wasn't feminism supposed to be about unshackling women? Yes.

watwut 7y ago

There are still stay at home moms, either cause they like it, for children or because it makes economical sense. And there were always women who had to work. At every single point in history. And to be flippant, it is easier to swap employer when things go wrong, abusive or violent. And practically, ability to earn money do improve this aspect significantly. It makes things better if husband dies or get sick too. Also, if the husband is working 12 hours a day in two jobs, you don't get much familly with him either. He kind of becomes wallet.